Equality and Diversity Annual Report 28 2. Equality Information: Student Data Progression and attainment of NTU’s Equality & Diversity students: 2010/11 to 2013/14 Introduction This report provides an update of the progression and attainment trends of NTU’s equality & diversity groups from 2010/11 to 2013/14. In line with analysis carried out last year this identifies differential rates of success across the student life cycle between certain equality groups and the student body at large. When adjusting for other potential explanatory factors, including pre-entry qualifications, there remained strong evidence that some groups of students had lower rates of progression, attainment and employment (particularly into graduate level occupations). These findings are being addressed at School-level via the ‘Narrowing the Gap’ project. Methodology Unless otherwise stated, the analysis in this report is taken from NTU’s COGNOS WP/E&D dataset, which is ultimately derived from the same data source as the University’s annual monitoring reports provided to Schools. The data analysis relating to progression and undergraduate attainment focuses primarily on full-time home UCAS/GTTR students, although there is an additional section focusing on international students and the relationship with E&D groups. Direct, part-time, international and postgraduate entrants are included in the enrolments sub-sections for the purpose of completeness. With regards to progression trends, it has been agreed that ‘not progressing’, and ‘repeating’ classifications from the annual monitoring reports refer to students not progressing, whilst ‘progressing’ and ‘progressing following referral’ classifications refer to successful progression. The classifications ‘not progressing – exceptional circumstances’ and ‘no decision’ are excluded from progression calculations.
37
Embed
2. Equality Information: Student Data › equality-diversity-inclusion › ... · 2018-03-15 · 2. Equality Information: Student Data . Progression and attainment of NTU’s Equality
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 28
2. Equality Information: Student Data Progression and attainment of NTU’s Equality & Diversity students: 2010/11 to 2013/14 Introduction This report provides an update of the progression and attainment trends of NTU’s equality & diversity groups from 2010/11 to 2013/14. In line with analysis carried out last year this identifies differential rates of success across the student life cycle between certain equality groups and the student body at large. When adjusting for other potential explanatory factors, including pre-entry qualifications, there remained strong evidence that some groups of students had lower rates of progression, attainment and employment (particularly into graduate level occupations). These findings are being addressed at School-level via the ‘Narrowing the Gap’ project. Methodology Unless otherwise stated, the analysis in this report is taken from NTU’s COGNOS WP/E&D dataset, which is ultimately derived from the same data source as the University’s annual monitoring reports provided to Schools. The data analysis relating to progression and undergraduate attainment focuses primarily on full-time home UCAS/GTTR students, although there is an additional section focusing on international students and the relationship with E&D groups. Direct, part-time, international and postgraduate entrants are included in the enrolments sub-sections for the purpose of completeness. With regards to progression trends, it has been agreed that ‘not progressing’, and ‘repeating’ classifications from the annual monitoring reports refer to students not progressing, whilst ‘progressing’ and ‘progressing following referral’ classifications refer to successful progression. The classifications ‘not progressing – exceptional circumstances’ and ‘no decision’ are excluded from progression calculations.
Male Total 12455 45.1% 12894 45.3% 12519 45.1% 12421 44.9%Grand Total 27591 100.0% 28485 100.0% 27756 100.0% 27664 100.0%Unknown gender/residency 77 4 61 71
1: Gender 1.1: Applications & Admissions Figure 1.1.1: Unsuccessful NTU applications by gender, 2010 to 2013 (excludes Clearing and withdrawn applications)
Source: UCAS conversion data
The gap between female and male offers has narrowed in the 2013/14 applications cycle and there is now little difference between the two. 1.2: Enrolments Table 1.2.1: NTU enrolments by gender and residency: all enrolled student
In 2013/14, 55.1% of all NTU’s enrolled students were female, which was in line with trends for previous years and close to that of the HESA sector average for England which was 56.2%1 in 2012/2013. 14.7% of female and 16.2% of male students were from the EU or other overseas. This compares to the 2012/13 HESA UK sector average of 16.3% of Female students and 20.6% of Male students being from the EU or overseas (non-EU).
1 Equality in higher education: statistical report 2014: Part 2 - Students
Table 1.2.2: NTU enrolments by entry route and gender: all enrolled student
76.6% of 2013/14 NTU students were from the UCAS/GTTR route. Table 1.2.3: NTU enrolments by mode of study and gender: all enrolled students
In 2013/14, 54.7% of NTU’s full-time and 58.6% of NTU’s part-time students were female. According to HESA figures for 2012/13, 54.5% of all UK full-time students were female and 60.5% of all part-time students. Table 1.2.4: NTU enrolments by programme level and gender: all enrolled students
Of the 2013/14 further education (FE) programmes run by NTU (within the School of Animal, Rural & Environmental Sciences), 76.6% of students were female. Females also outnumbered males in non- credit (NC) bearing courses (72.1%), postgraduate (PG) taught (57.0%) and undergraduate (54.6%) courses. However, there were more males (55.7%) than females studying NTU’s postgraduate research (PR) programmes.
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 31
HESA data for the UK showed that 56.4% of undergraduate students were female, 46.9% of Postgraduate Researchers and 57.8% of Postgraduate taught students.
1.3: Progression from year 1 of undergraduate study Figure 1.3.1: Progression to second year of study by gender
p = 0.000; Odds ratio for not progressing (Male / Female) = 1.71 (1.60, 1.82); Relative risk for not progressing (Male / Female) = 1.56 (1.48, 1.65)
There was a further decrease in year one progression rates of both males and females between 2012/13 and 2013/14. Over the four years analysed, female students were significantly more likely to successfully progress than male students, which, as previous analysis testified, cannot be solely attributed to students’ prior attainment. The 2013/14 female/male progression gap was 8.3 percentage points. The methodology for progression figures used by HESA differs to that used by NTU. Therefore, direct comparisons cannot be made with sector figures, although the national data indicate a similar trend of male students being less likely to successfully progress through their course.
p = 0.000; Odds ratio for not achieving 1st Class or 2:1 (Male / Female) = 1.38 (1.31, 1.47); Relative risk for not achieving 1st Class or 2:1 (Male / Female) = 1.23 (1.19, 1.28) Figure 1.4.1b: Undergraduate attainment by gender – all degree classifications
Male students have consistently been less likely to achieve a First Class or 2:1 degree classification than their female counterparts. Previous analysis showed that whilst, on average, females had higher pre-entry qualifications than males, this only partially explained the disparities in the final degree classifications, because, when controlling for the UCAS tariff, females continued to outperform males.
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 34
The 2013/14 female/male ‘good degree’ (1st Class or 2:1) attainment gap was 8.3 percentage points. HESA data for 2012/13 showed that in England 69.8% of female 1st Class or 2:1 degree. This compares to 65.2% of male students giving a gender gap of 4.7 percentage points.
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 35
Asian Black Mixed ethnicity Other ethnicity White2010 27.0% 32.8% 29.2% 29.0% 26.9%2011 32.9% 37.0% 33.0% 35.6% 29.2%2012 32.5% 29.5% 24.5% 29.3% 28.3%2013 23.5% 18.9% 13.9% 17.0% 28.3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Perc
enta
ge o
f app
licat
ions
reje
cted
2: Ethnicity
2.1: Applications & Admissions Figure 2.1.1: Unsuccessful NTU applications by ethnic group, 2010 to 2013 (excludes Clearing and withdrawn applications)
Source: NTU UCAS conversion data
In 2013/14 there was a significant increase in the proportion of BME students receiving an offer and for the first time BME students were more likely to receive an offer than their white counterparts, although the national data indicate a similar trend of BME students being less likely to successfully progress through their course.
2.2: Enrolments Table 2.2.1: NTU enrolments by ethnic group and residency: all enrolled students
In 2013/14, 70.3% of NTU’s enrolled students were white, 12.4% were Asian, 7.5% black, 4.8% Chinese, 4.0% mixed ethnicity and 0.8% were from another ethnic group. Over the last four years the proportion of the NTU student body that were BME has increased from 27.4% to 29.7%. BME students made up 22.4% of all home students. This compares to 2012/13 HESA figures for England of 22.1% of all UK-domiciled (Home) students being BME. Table 2.2.2: NTU enrolments by entry route and ethnicity summary: all enrolled students
37.8% of 2013/14 direct entrants were BME, compared with 27.2% of UCAS/GTTR students.
Table 2.2.3: NTU enrolments by mode of study and ethnicity summary: all enrolled students
In 2013/14, 30.5% of NTU’s full-time students were BME, compared with 22.6% of part-time students. In 2012/13, HESA figures showed that in the UK 23.0% of all full-time students and 15.1% of all part time students were BME. Table 2.2.4: NTU enrolments by programme level and ethnicity summary: all enrolled students
The proportion of 2013/14 BME postgraduate taught and postgraduate research students at NTU was 39.1% and 48.1% respectively. These figures are considerably higher than the proportion of BME undergraduate students at NTU which was 27.7%. HESA data for 2012/13 showed that 19.5% of Postgraduate taught students and 16.8% of Postgraduate Researchers were BME, whilst 20.4% of all undergraduates were BME.
2.3: Progression from year 1 of undergraduate study Figure 2.3.1: Progression to second year of study by ethnic group
p = 0.000; Odds ratio for not progressing (BME / White) = 1.79 (1.66, 1.92); Relative risk for not progressing (BME / White) = 1.60 (1.52, 1.70) Over the four years, white students were significantly more likely to successfully progress to their second year of study than black, Asian and mixed ethnicity students. BME students, on average, had lower pre-entry qualifications than their white counterparts, but there was a disparity in progression rates even when adjusting for this prior attainment. Progression rates of BME students have decreased between 2011/12 and 2013/14. In 2013/14 the progression rate for white students was 84.9% and 74.3% for BME students. The 2013/14 white/BME progression gap was 10.6 percentage points. The methodology for progression figures used by HESA differs to that used by NTU. Therefore, direct comparisons cannot be made with sector figures.
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 39
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14BME White
2.4: Undergraduate attainment Figure 2.4.1a: Undergraduate attainment by ethnic group – ‘good degrees’
p = 0.000; Odds ratio for not achieving 1st Class or 2:1 (BME / White) = 2.28 (2.13, 2.44); Relative risk for not achieving 1st Class or 2:1 (BME / White) = 1.64 (1.58, 1.70)
Figure 2.4.1b: Undergraduate attainment by ethnic group – all degree classifications
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 40
Black, Asian and Chinese students have been consistently less likely to achieve a 1st Class or 2:1 degree classification than their white counterparts, as have BME students which held when controlling for prior attainment. According to HESA data for 2012/13, 46.8% of Black UK-domiciled first degree undergraduate qualifiers in England achieved a 1st class or 2:1 degree compared to 74.4% of white students. This gives a white/Black attainment gap of 27.0 percentage points. This compares to a 28.2 percentage point white/Black attainment gap at NTU. There was an increase in the proportion of BME students at NTU achieving 1st Class or 2:1 classification between 2012/13 and 2013/14 which saw the overall gap narrow, although the proportion of Black students achieving a First Class or 2:1 degree decreased. Further scrutiny shows that in 2013/14 white students (21.9%) were more than twice as likely to achieve a first class honours than BME (10.0%) students. 57.0% of BME students achieved a 1st Class or 2:1 qualification. This compares to 74.4% of white students giving a white/BME attainment gap of 17.4 percentage points. The 2013/14 white/BME ‘good degree’ (1st Class or 2:1) attainment gap was 17.4 percentage points. HESA data for 2012/13 showed that in England, 73.8% of white UK-domiciled first degree undergraduate qualifiers achieved a 1st Class or 2:1 degree. This compares to 57.0% of BME students in England giving a white/BME attainment gap of 16.8 percentage points.
3: Disability 3.1: Applications & Admissions Figure 3.1.1: Unsuccessful NTU applications by Declared Disability, 2010 to 2013 (excludes Clearing and withdrawn applications)
Source: UCAS conversion data
Applicants who have declared a disability have consistently been less likely to receive offers than those without disabilities, although the difference is relatively small. In 2013/14, 18.5% of applications from disabled applicants did not receive offers, compared with 15.2% of applications from non-disabled applicants. There was no evidence that that offer rates of disabled and non-disabled applicants differed when taking account of prior attainment.
3.2: Enrolments Table 3.2.1: NTU enrolments by disability and residency: all enrolled students
There has been a consistent increase in the proportion of NTU’s student body known to have a disability over recent years; from 5.3% in 2010/11 to 8.5% in 2013/14. HESA figures for England in 2012/13 showed that 9.6% of all students were disabled. Table 3.2.2: NTU enrolments by entry route and disability: all enrolled students
The number and proportion of students with a disability taking both the direct and UCAS/GTTR route has increased over recent years, with just a slight decrease in 2013/14 for students on the direct route. In 2013/14 the proportion of students with a disability taking the UCAS/GTTR route was 9.2% and taking the direct route was 6.3%. Table 3.2.3: NTU enrolments by mode of study and disability: all enrolled students
The proportion of students with disabilities is similar for full-time and part-time students at 8.9% and 8.6% respectively. This compares to HESA UK sector figures of 9.5% of all full time and 9.2% of all part-time students being disabled.
Table 3.2.4: NTU enrolments by level of study and disability: all enrolled students
The proportion of NTU’s further education (FE) students (studying ARES Level 3 courses) with a disability has consistently been higher than students on higher level programmes. 9.0% of undergraduate students were disabled, whilst just 6.5% of Postgraduate taught students and 5.9% of Postgraduate Researchers where disabled.
HESA figures for 2012/13 showed that in the UK, 10.4% of undergraduates were disabled and 6.6% of Postgraduate researchers and 6.0% of postgraduate taught students.
3.3: Progression from year 1 of undergraduate study Figure 3.3.1: Progression to second year of study by disability
p = 0.009; Odds ratio for not progressing (Disabled / Not Disabled) = 1.17 (1.04, 1.31); Relative risk for not progressing (Disabled / Not Disabled) = 1.14 (1.03, 1.25)
Over the last three years, progression rates of disabled students have fallen below that of their non-disabled counterparts. Previous analysis for the 2008/09 to 2011/12 academic years showed that there was no statistical evidence of any disparity in progression rates when controlling for prior attainment. The very latest figures show a dip in the proportion of disabled students, 78.2%, progressing to year 2. This compares to a progression rate for non-disabled students of 82.6% and gives a non-disabled/disabled progression gap of 4.4 percentage points. Progression rates for disabled students with therefore continue to be closely monitored. The methodology for progression figures used by HESA differs to that used by NTU. Therefore, direct comparisons cannot be made with sector figures, although, consistent with NTU trends, national data indicate that disabled students are slightly less likely than non-disabled students to successfully progress through their course.
Figure 3.4.1a: Undergraduate attainment by disability – ‘good degrees’
p = 0.254; Odds ratio for not achieving 1st Class or 2:1 (Disability / No disability) = 1.07 (0.96, 1.19); Relative risk for not achieving 1st Class or 2:1 (Disability / No disability) = 1.04 (0.97, 1.12)
There was an increase in the proportion of disabled students achieving at least a 2:1 degree classification between 2012/13 and 2013/14 and there was no evidence of any statistical difference in disabled and non-disabled student attainment. HESA figures for England for 2012/13 showed that 68.0% of non-disabled and 66.1% of disabled first degree undergraduate qualifiers achieved a 1st Class or 2:1 degree.
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 46
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14Disabled Not disabled
Figure 3.4.1b: Undergraduate attainment by disability – all degree classifications
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 47
Under 21 21-25 Over 252010 25.9% 45.4% 40.6%2011 29.4% 42.7% 36.1%2012 25.3% 34.8% 27.2%2013 14.4% 25.3% 27.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Perc
enta
ge o
f app
licat
ions
reje
cted
4: Age 4.1: Applications & Admissions Figure 4.1.1: Unsuccessful NTU applications by Age Group, 2010 to 2013 (excludes Clearing and withdrawn applications)
Source: UCAS conversion data
Across the University as a whole, mature applicants are significantly more likely to be unsuccessful in the applications process than their younger counterparts. However, as previous statistical analysis has indicated, this is inextricably linked to differing entry qualifications between young and mature applicants.
UCAS/GTTR Total 20335 73.5% 21499 75.5% 21195 76.2% 21250 76.6%Grand Total 27668 100.0% 28489 100.0% 27817 100.0% 27735 100.0%
4.2: Enrolments Table 4.2.1: NTU enrolments by age group and residency: all enrolled students
67.9% of NTU’s student body were aged under 21 years of age in 2013/14, which has remained steady since 2011/12. In 2013/14, we can derive from the tables that 74.6% of Home students were under the age of 21, whilst there was a considerably lower proportion of EU (39.4%) and overseas (28.7%) students aged under 21. It is difficult to compare NTU data with sector data as the age categories used by HESA are slightly different. Table 4.2.2: NTU enrolments by entry route and age group: all enrolled students
In 2013/14, just 9.0% of direct entrants were aged under 21, compared with 85.7% of UCAS/GTTR students.
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 49
201011 201112 201213 201314Mode of study Age group No. % No. % No. % No. %Full-Time Under 21 18078 76.0% 19090 76.2% 18625 75.3% 18635 75.1%
UG Total 22277 80.5% 23215 81.5% 22264 80.0% 22442 80.9%Grand Total 27668 100.0% 28489 100.0% 27817 100.0% 27735 100.0%
Table 4.2.3: NTU enrolments by mode of study and age group: all enrolled students
75.1% of 2013/14 full-time students were aged under 21, compared with just 5.5% of part-time students. 70.3% of part-time students were aged over 25. Table 4.2.4: NTU enrolments by programme level and age group: all enrolled students
53.2% of NTU’s 2013/14 postgraduate taught students were aged 21-25, with 46.2% aged over 25. A much greater proportion (83.6%) of postgraduate research students were aged over 25. 82.7% of all undergraduates were under 21, 11.7% were aged 21-25 and 5.6% aged over 25.
4.3: Progression from year 1 of undergraduate study Figure 4.3.1: Progression to second year of study by age group
p = 0.000; Odds ratio for not progressing (Mature / Young) = 2.14 (1.95, 2.34); Relative risk for not progressing (Mature / Young) = 1.82 (1.70, 1.95)
Over the four years, mature students were significantly less likely to successfully progress to their second year of study than young students. In 2013/14 83% of young entrants successfully progressed, compared with 72% of mature entrants. Due to very different entry profiles of mature and young students, NTU have not set OFFA progression targets, although will continue to monitor the progress of mature students.
4.4: Undergraduate attainment Figure 4.4.1a Undergraduate attainment by age group – ‘good degrees’
p = 0.000; Odds ratio for not achieving 1st Class or 2:1 (Mature / Young) = 1.19 (1.08, 1.31); Relative risk for not achieving 1st Class or 2:1 (Mature / Young) = 1.12 (1.05, 1.19)
Figure 4.4.1b Undergraduate attainment by age group – all degree classifications
Since 2011/12 the proportion of mature students achieving a 2:1 or first class degree classification has decreased to from 63.9% to 60.1%, whilst the performance of younger students has increased to from 63.7% to 71.8%. As such, where there had previously been little evidence of an attainment gap due to age the young/mature student attainment gap is now 11.7%.
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 52
Low socio-economi group (NS-SEC 4-7) High socio-economic group (NS-SEC 4-8)2011 31.8% 27.9%2012 28.0% 23.3%2013 15.6% 13.3%
5: Widening Participation 5.1: Applications & Admissions Figure 5.1.1: Unsuccessful NTU applications by socio-economic group, 2011 to 2013 (excludes Clearing and withdrawn applications)
Source: UCAS conversion data
Across the University as a whole, students from low socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to be unsuccessful in the applications process than their counterparts from higher socio-economic backgrounds. 5.2: Enrolments Table 5.2.1: NTU enrolments by entry route and socio-economic group: home residency, young students
In 2013/14 24.7% of UCAS/GTTR students were from a low socio-economic group as were a similar proportion of direct entrants (27.0%).
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 53
Low socio- 201011 201112 201213 201314Mode of study economic group No. % No. % No. % No. %Full-Time No 12544 76.0% 13318 76.3% 12875 75.9% 12820 75.2%
Table 5.2.2: NTU enrolments by mode of study and socio-economic group: home residency, young students
24.8% of 2013/14 full-time students were from a low socio-economic group, compared with 16.2% of part-time students. Table 5.2.3: NTU enrolments by programme level and socio-economic group: home residency, young students
24.7% of NTU’s 2013/14 undergraduate students were from a low socio-economic group. This figure has been similar over recent years. 34.1% of students on 2013/14 FE courses were from a low socio-economic group.
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 54
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14High socio-economic group 84.0% 88.5% 87.7% 85.8%Low socio-economic group 79.4% 81.6% 79.2% 77.6%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
% of students progressing to year 2
5.3: Progression from year 1 of undergraduate study Figure 5.3.1: Progression to second year of study by socio-economic group
p = 0.000; Odds ratio for not progressing (low s-e group / high s-e group) = 1.66 (1.53, 1.79); Relative risk for not progressing (low s-e group / high s-e group) = 1.52 (1.43, 1.62)
Over the four years, students from low socio-economic backgrounds were significantly less likely to successfully progress to their second year of study than students from higher socio-economic backgrounds. The 2013/14 socio-economic progression gap was 8.2 percentage points.
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 55
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14High socio-economic group 59.1% 65.8% 70.5% 74.5%Low socio-economic group 45.6% 57.3% 59.1% 62.9%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
% of students achieving 1st Class or 2:1
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14Low socio-economic group High socio-economic group
5.4: Undergraduate attainment Figure 5.4.1a Undergraduate attainment by socio-economic group – ‘good degrees’
p = 0.000; Odds ratio for not achieving 1st Class or 2:1 (low s-e group / high s-e group) = 1.63 (1.52, 1.75); Relative risk for not achieving 1st Class or 2:1 (low s-e group / high s-e group) = 1.36 (1.30, 1.42)
Figure 5.4.1b Undergraduate attainment by socio-economic group – all degree classifications
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 56
Over the four years, students from low socio-economic backgrounds were consistently less likely to achieve a 1st Class or 2:1 degree than students from higher socio-economic backgrounds. The 2013/14 socio-economic ‘good degree’ gap was 11.6 percentage points.
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 57
Home Overseas2010 27.4% 35.5%2011 30.3% 35.0%2012 25.9% 32.1%2013 15.4% 25.5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Perc
enta
ge o
f app
licat
ions
reje
cted
6: International Students 6.1 Overview of NTU students by residency Figure 6.1.1 Unsuccessful NTU applications by residency, 2011 to 2013 (excludes Clearing and withdrawn applications)
Students from overseas have been consistently more likely to be unsuccessful in the application process than home students.
In 2013/14 84.6% of NTU’s students were classed as home students, 11.8% were from overseas and 3.6% were from the EU. These figures have remained similar since 2010/11 although there has been a slight decrease in the proportion of home students each year.
Figure 6.1.3 Progression to second year of study by residency
p = 0.000; Odds ratio for not progressing (Home / Overseas) = 1.80 (1.58, 2.02); Relative risk for not progressing (Home / Overseas) = 1.58 (1.45, 1.73)
Overseas students have consistently had lower rates of progression than home students. In 2012/13, the progression gap between home and overseas students widened considerably to 18.3 percentage points. In 2013/14, the home/overseas progression gap reduced to 9.6%. 82.2% of home students successfully progressed, compared with 78.1% of EU and 72.6% of (other) overseas students.
Figure 6.1.4 Undergraduate attainment by residency – ‘good degrees’
p = 0.000; Odds ratio for not achieving 1st Class or 2:1 (Home / Overseas) = 4.96 (4.37, 5.64); Relative risk for not achieving 1st Class or 2:1 (Home / Overseas) = 2.08 (2.00, 2.16)
Over the four years overseas students were significantly less likely to achieve a 1st Class or 2:1 degree than home or EU students. In 2013/14, the ‘good degree’ attainment gap between home and overseas students was as high as 42.6 percentage points.
6.2: Applications & Admissions Table 6.2.1: Unsuccessful NTU applications by gender and residency, 2011 to 2013 (excludes Clearing and withdrawn applications)
There is little difference between the proportion of offers made to overseas male and females, as is the case with home students. Table 6.2.2: Unsuccessful NTU applications by age and residency, 2011 to 2013 (excludes Clearing and withdrawn applications)
Mature overseas applicants are less likely to receive an offer than their younger counterparts, as is the case with home students. 6.3: Progression from year 1 of undergraduate study Table 6.3.1: Progression to second year of study by gender and residency
The trend which has been identified between home male and female students (with female students being significantly more likely to successfully progress than male students) is also apparent with EU and overseas students (although numbers for EU students in 2013/14 were very similar with males being slightly more likely to progress than females). In 2013/14 84.6% of female overseas students progressed compared to just 61.6% of overseas males.
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 62
201011 201112 201213 201314Disability Residency No % No % No % No %Disabled EU 0.0% 2 66.7% 3 100.0% 4 100.0%
Table 6.3.2: Progression to second year of study by ethnicity and residency2
BME overseas students have on average been less likely to progress than their white counterparts (as is the case for home students) although this trend was reversed in 2013/14 with 74.7% of BME students progressing compared to 71.4% of white students (although the number of white overseas students is relatively small). Table 6.3.3: Progression to second year of study by disability and residency
The numbers of EU and overseas students with disabilities is very low and it is difficult to draw any conclusions from the figures. Table 6.3.4: Progression to second year of study by age and residency
Whilst on average young overseas students tend to do better than their mature counterparts, this has not been the case every year and the gap between the two is much smaller than it is for home students.
2 The number of BME EU students is very low and it is difficult to draw any conclusions from the figures.
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 63
201011 201112 201213 201314Gender Residency No % No % No % No %Female EU 24 58.5% 26 53.1% 33 75.0% 35 61.4%
6.4: Undergraduate attainment Table 6.4.1: Undergraduate attainment by gender and residency – ‘good degrees’
As is the case for home students, male overseas students have consistently been less likely to achieve a First Class or 2:1 degree classification than their female counterparts, although the gap between the two did narrow considerably from 2012/13 to 2013/14.
There does not appear to be any trends in the disparities between male and female EU students, although the numbers are relatively small.
Table 6.4.2: Undergraduate attainment by ethnicity and residency – ‘good degrees’
The numbers of BME EU and white overseas students who achieved a ‘good degree’ are very low and it is difficult to draw any conclusions from the figures.
Table 6.4.3: Undergraduate attainment by disability and residency – ‘good degrees’
The numbers of disabled EU and overseas students who achieved a ‘good degree’ are very low and it is difficult to draw any conclusions from the figures.
Equality and Diversity Annual Report 64
201011 201112 201213 201314Age Residency No % No % No % No %Mature EU 9 45.0% 11 64.7% 13 81.3% 15 55.6%
Table 6.4.4: Undergraduate attainment by age and residency – ‘good degrees’
In 2012/13 and 2013/14 mature overseas students were less likely to achieve a 1st Class or 2:1 degree than their younger counterparts, as was the case with home students.